Winter Recreation Planning - Winter Wildlands Alliance

Winter Recreation Planning
the good, the bad, and the ugly
Table of Contents
1. Vail Pass, White River National Forest, Colorado
Through facilitated negotiations and compromise stakeholders worked together to create a plan
that improves everybody’s backcountry experience. Long-term success has resulted because those
who crafted the plan have stayed engaged and followed through on their commitments.
4. Turnagain Pass, Chugach National Forest, Alaska
Clear boundaries and simple management plans are essential to successful backcountry zoning
5. Wood River Valley, Sawtooth National Forest, Idaho
A skilled, neutral, facilitator can help all parties come to an agreement and equal representation by
motorized and non-motorized stakeholders ensures a fair and balanced solution.
7. Lewis and Clark National Forest, Montana
Incentives to negotiate, and compromise in those negotiations, are essential.
9. Clearwater National Forest, Idaho
The Forest Service has broad management authority, including restricting non-conforming uses in
Recommended Wilderness Areas
10. Lincoln Ranger District, Helena National Forest, Montana
When stakeholders come together early to craft their own plan for motorized access, land
managers listen
11. Tony Grove-Franklin Basin Winter Recreation Area, Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest, Utah
Management plans do not always solve conflict or bring balance to the backcountry.
12. Togwotee Pass, Shoshone National Forest, Wyoming
An example of how travel planning is needed to find balance in the backcountry.
14. Iron Mountain, Eldorado National Forest, California
Demonstrating why incentives matter in negotiations.
16. Lessons learned
© Jim Harris
The Forest Service has recently developed a new rule to guide winter travel management
planning on National Forests across the country. Prior to this rule winter travel planning
has been inconsistent and rare. However, despite this, there have been some very good
winter travel and recreation management plans developed across the West. There are also
examples of where winter travel management is desperately needed, and where people
have tried, and failed, to solve user conflicts and bring balance to the backcountry through
travel planning. This document outlines several case studies that demonstrate the broad
range of travel plans and planning attempts across National Forest lands.
While travel planning is not a panacea for solving user conflict, a mandatory winter travel
management planning process that is consistent across all National Forest lands will go a
long way towards bringing certainty and balance to the backcountry. These case studies
highlight what has proven to work, and not work, in winter travel planning and should help
to guide future efforts in this regard.
Vail Pass, White River National Forest, Colorado
th
10 Mountain Division Hut Association, Backcountry Snowsports Initiative
Through facilitated negotiations and compromise stakeholders
worked together to create a plan that improves everybody’s backcountry experience. Long-term success has resulted because those
who crafted the plan have stayed engaged and followed through on
their commitments.
The White River National Forest is one of the few forests to do comprehensive travel management planning
under the 2005 Rule. The plan, finalized in 2011, specifies where over-snow vehicles are allowed by area,
designates motorized routes through otherwise restricted areas, specifies the dates when over-snow
motorized travel is allowed (November 23-May 20), and establishes a monitoring program. While there are
many aspects of this travel plan that bear mentioning, the Vail Pass area deserves specific attention.
Vail Pass is easy to access, has abundant snow, and is in close proximity to the Denver metro area. These
factors combine to make it an extremely popular destination for winter recreationalists. As in most places
where there are many people pursuing many types of activities, there was conflict between motorized and
non-motorized users on Vail Pass. This conflict escalated sharply starting in the early 1990’s. Increases in
the numbers of motorized and non-motorized users, a lack of regulations, and increasingly powerful
snowmobiles that could travel into previously inaccessible terrain boiled together to create an unsustainable
situation.
1
To solve these problems and reduce user conflict the
Vail Pass Task Force organized in the mid-1990’s. The
Task Force initially came together to create a plan to
operate Vail Pass as a voluntary shared-use area.
However, because of lack of compliance by
snowmobilers with the voluntary shared-use
agreement the Task Force ultimately worked with the
Forest Service to turn Vail Pass into a managed fee
demo area.
Today users pay $6/day or $40/season to access the
Vail Pass Winter Recreation Area. These fees are
collected by the Forest Service and directed to the
Vail Pass Task Force through a cost-share agreement.
The Task Force then uses these funds to pay for
management services such as grooming, education,
and enforcement. The area is managed under a plan
that was created by the Task Force after more than a
decade of meetings. Once the Task Force developed
an agreement on winter recreation management they
presented it to the White River National Forest and it
was adopted in its entirety and is integrated into the
White River National Forest travel plan. While this
management plan has ultimately been a success, its
creation was followed a rocky path.
The Vail Pass Task Force, a 501c (3), came together as
way for the Forest Service to give stakeholders a
voice. This voluntary group has 8 members – 4
representing motorized users (the local snowmobile
club, a cat-skiing operator, the CO Snowmobile
Association, and a local snowmobile guide), and 4
representing non-motorized users (the 10th Mountain
Division Hut Association, CO Mountain Club, Quiet
Use Coalition, and a private hut owner). The member
groups have not changed since the Task Force’s
inception and the people representing the groups
have stayed relatively consistent as well. In fact, 5 of
the original 8 individuals remain on the Task Force to
this day. For each decision the Task Force faces
everybody has an opportunity to state their case and
then the Task Force votes on the issue. In cases
where votes are tied, the Forest Service makes a
decision. This is rarely necessary, however, because
Task Force members have done a good job of keeping
issues in perspective and rarely vote on “party lines.”
Once the Task Force passes a recommendation the
Forest Service has discretion whether or not to
implement it or to modify the recommendation prior
to implementing it. So far the Forest Service has
implemented every recommendation passed by the
Task Force. Although the Vail Pass Management Plan
has been implemented, the Task Force continues to
meet to discuss current issues such as grooming and
education.
One of the most difficult aspects of creating the
management plan was overcoming precedent and
the history of the area. Specifically, the motorized
community had to give up terrain that they had had
access to for many years. However, in the end the
Task Force was able to reach an agreement because
everybody was willing to make concessions. The
motorized members agreed to give up some access
and the non-motorized members agreed to take on
some of the grooming duties. In addition, everybody
contributed financially to the success of the Task
Force and Management Plan. However, money
continues to be the biggest challenge facing the Vail
Pass Task Force. The $6/day user fee is not sufficient
to properly manage Vail Pass. While these fees are
supplemented by grants, it is likely that the Task
Force will need to consider raising the daily and
seasonal fee.
The Vail Pass Management Plan divides Vail Pass into
motorized and non-motorized areas. Boundaries are
defined by clear topographic or geographic features
where possible. Because of the management plan
people visiting Vail Pass know what to expect – where
they can go, the types of uses they will encounter,
etc. – and their recreational experience has been
vastly improved. While dividing an area into many
small pieces may not be the best solution for other
backcountry recreation areas, this management
strategy works very well for Vail Pass.
There are a number of factors that have contributed
to the success of this management plan. First, the
Task Force was made up of evenly represented
stakeholders so that everybody had an equal voice.
2
In addition, the stakeholders were willing to compromise, are committed to the Task Force, and are
financially able to help support the Task Force. The Forest Service has been a major factor in the success of
this effort as well. The Forest Service created the space for the Task Force to form and has supported its
efforts and values its recommendations. In particular the Task Force works very well with the District Ranger,
who in turn has support from his supervisors. The Forest Service understands that the Task Force not only
can help make their jobs easier, its success reflects positively on the Forest Service too.
3
Turnagain Pass, Chugach National Forest, Alaska
Clear boundaries and simple management strategies are essential
to successful backcountry zoning.
The Turnagain Pass area on the Chugach National Forest is often cited as a prime example of where the
Forest Service has done a good job of zoning the backcountry. The Seward Highway crosses Turnagain Pass
and creates a clear and enforceable boundary to separate uses. All areas south of the highway on
Turnagain Pass are designated non-motorized while snowmobiles are allowed north of the highway.
Motorized users, including hybrid skiers, stay on the motorized side and backcountry skiers touring on the
south side of the highway can rightfully expect a non-motorized backcountry experience.
Snowmobiles have been present on Turnagain Pass since before the creation of the Chugach National
Forest and when Turnagain was included as part of the Chugach the Forest Service recognized that the
area had potential for user conflict. As a result, Turnagain has been zoned to separate motorized from
non-motorized winter recreation since the mid-1970’s. This simple management plan has been effective
and there has been very little conflict between snowmobilers and skiers on Turnagain Pass. A prime reason
this management strategy has been successful is that it is easily enforceable, with unambiguous
boundaries. Another straightforward approach to winter recreation management on the Chugach National
Forest is at Resurrection Pass, where motorized use is permitted every other year. This type of black-andwhite management strategy is not the solution everywhere, but the Chugach National Forest and other
areas have demonstrated success with these plans because they are equitable, cause little confusion, and
follow common-sense geographical boundaries.
Turnagain’s management plan is continuing to work well but even the best management plans require
updating. Given that the plan is several decades old, it may be time for the Forest Service and the public to
take a fresh look at Turnagain Pass. When the plan was developed there were far fewer backcountry skiers
using the area and the easy-to-access non-motorized zone seemed endless.
With the rapid rise in the number of skiers venturing into the backcountry and the prolific spread of
heli-skiing, however, conditions have changed. The Chugach National Forest is currently revising its land
management plan and this, along with the upcoming winter travel management planning process, will
provide opportunities to re-assess how best to zone the Turnagain backcountry.
© Katie Strong
4
Wood River Valley, Sawtooth National Forest, Idaho
Nordic and Backcountry Skiers Alliance of Idaho
A skilled, neutral, facilitator can help all parties come to an agreement and equal representation by motorized and non-motorized
stakeholders ensures a fair and balanced solution.
Skier/snowmobile conflict in the Wood River Valley followed the same predictable pattern seen in
backcountry areas across the West. Each year brought more people into the backcountry and those on
snowmobiles had increasingly more powerful machines. With the development of high powered powder
sleds that were capable of reaching previously inaccessible terrain, snowmobiles began to track up
backcountry slopes and marginalize human-powered skiers. One major point of contention was that
snowmobilers wanted a groomed trail connecting the Sawtooth valley to Baker Creek, near Sun Valley,
through an area called Galena summit. The ski community was completely opposed to this trail because it
would bisect the world-class Galena Lodge Nordic ski trails. Although, at the time, the area around Galena
Summit was not closed to snowmobiles, snowmobilers generally respected a voluntary closure. However, in
the late 1990’s controversy over use and access came to a head when a group of snowmobilers rode over
Galena Summit, riding on some Nordic ski trails in the process. This led to outrage in the ski community and
the Forest Service issued an emergency closure for the area around the Galena Lodge trail system. This only
exacerbated the conflict.
By the 1998-1999 season, user conflicts had reached a point of outright hostility and action needed to be
taken. The Forest Service and the Blaine County Recreation District organized a small, equally represented,
group of skiers and snowmobilers and brought them together to try to work out conflict and address issues
as they arose. At this time the Nordic and Backcountry Skier Alliance (a founding member of Winter
Wildlands Alliance) organized as well. They began documenting conflicts, writing letters to the editor, and
meeting with local, state, and federal elected officials, and the Forest Service, to convince the Forest Service
to zone the backcountry into motorized and non-motorized areas.
These efforts generated the political cover that the Forest Service needed to take action. In response to
political pressure and the ever-increasing conflict, the Forest Supervisor issued an ultimatum to the winter
recreation community: skiers and snowmobilers needed to create a management map they could all agree
on within a year or he would come up with a map nobody would like. With the Supervisor’s threat to
motivate them the Nordic and Backcountry Skier Alliance and the Sawtooth Snowmobile Club came together
to form the Winter Recreation Coalition. They hired a professional mediator to facilitate their negotiations
and within 9 months the organizations had reached an agreement (the Snow Pact) and created a user map.
While not perfect, the Snow Pact divides the Wood River backcountry into motorized and non-motorized
zones and mostly separates the two user groups. The Snow Pact was implemented by the Forest Service via
a Special Order and has effectively eliminated user conflict in the Wood River Valley.
5
There were a couple of key moments during the
creation of the Snow Pact that pushed the Winter
Recreation Coalition towards resolution. By sharing
their experiences and quite literally stepping into
each other’s’ shoes, the individuals on the Winter
Recreation Coalition bonded and came to understand
each other’s perspectives. By going skiing, or at least
watching people ski, the snowmobilers on the
Coalition learned more about skiing – how fast skate
skiers go down hills, what classic tracks on a groomed
trail are for, why people love skiing – and how
snowmobiling disproportionality and negatively
impacted skiers’ experience. Likewise, the skiers
learned to appreciate why their snowmobiling
counterparts love snowmobiling by riding with them.
Another, less positive but equally formative,
experience was an arson event. During the crux of
the Winter Recreation Coalition’s negotiations
arsonists burned down a privately-owned
backcountry ski hut. This event precipitated a lot of
anger and mistrust in the community but the Winter
Recreation Coalition was able to work through these
feelings and accept the challenge presented by the
arsonists. Despite clear signs that some people did
not want to see the Winter Recreation Coalition
succeed, they pushed through and finalized the Snow
Pact.
giving up over 200,000 acres and voluntarily abiding
by closures. For their part, skiers recognized that
snowmobiles would now have access to more than
100 square miles of high-value terrain that, until the
advent of more powerful “powder sleds” in the
1990s, had been almost exclusively the domain of
backcountry skiers in winter. Another important
factor contributing to the success of this travel plan is
the social and political makeup of the area. The local
communities are very ski-orientated and local
government officials were in favor of non-motorized
designations. Finally, the members of the Winter
Recreation Coalition were willing to commit a
significant amount of time to this process and endure
the stress and difficulty associated with it. All in all,
there could not have been a better setting for an
agreement such as the Snow Pact to develop and
succeed. However, even with all of the factors that
led to the Snow Pact, the process was still incredibly
difficult and success was not guaranteed, or even
likely.
Not all is perfect in the Wood River Valley, however.
The Snow Pact called for a voluntary closure near a
backcountry hut but this has not been consistently
observed. In addition, while monitoring and possibly
revision of the Snow Pact are needed, neither of
these have happened.
The Snow Pact succeeded for a number of reasons.
First and foremost, both sides had an incentive to
negotiate – they knew that if they didn’t the Forest
Service would take unilateral action. Second, the
Winter Recreation Coalition hired an excellent
professional mediator to facilitate their negotiations.
With the help of the facilitator the individuals in the
Coalition were able to step into each other’s shoes
and understand each other’s point of view. Hiring
this mediator was only possible because all of the
parties – the Forest Service, the skiers, and the
snowmobilers – were willing to split the cost of hiring
him. With the help of the facilitator, the people on
the Winter Recreation Coalition were able to come
up with a solution that would be best for the
community even if it did not benefit their own
personal interests. For the snowmobilers this meant
© Jim Harris
6
http://www.skiersalliance.net/maps/default.html
Lewis and Clark National Forest, Montana
Montana Wilderness Association
Incentives to negotiate, and compromise in those
negotiations, are essential.
The Lewis and Clark National Forest was one of the first forests to develop a travel plan under the 2005 Rule
and it chose to include winter travel management in the process. During this travel planning process the
forest created two separate winter travel plans, one for the more primitive Badger-Two Medicine area and
another for the more roaded Little Belt, Northern Crazy, and Castle Mountains.
The Lewis and Clark did not develop winter travel plans for the entire Forest as some areas already had
established winter travel plans. The 2007 Little Belt/Crazy/Castle Mountains plan allows for a mix of
motorized and non-motorized uses. This plan includes a basic map for each mountain range that depict
open routes and areas. Under the 2007 travel plan those routes and areas not specified as open to OSVs on
7
the winter travel maps are closed. Meanwhile, the Badger-Two Medicine plan, completed in 2009, restricts
snowmobiles entirely from this section of the Lewis and Clark National Forest.
During the development of these travel plans the Montana Wilderness Association negotiated with the
Montana Snowmobile Association. The Montana Wilderness Association wanted to protect the Rocky
Mountain Front, other important wildlife habitat, and key non-motorized areas in the Little Belts, Crazies,
and Castle Mountains. The Snowmobile Association agreed to these restrictions in exchange for MWA
agreeing to not protest motorized use in other areas. However, not all motorized users or organizations felt
that they were represented by the Montana Snowmobile Association. These organizations did not agree
with the reduction in motorized areas and subsequently sued the Forest Service to overturn the 2007 plan.
However, while their challenge was upheld in District Court it was overturned by the 9th Circuit Court of
Appeals and the 2007 plan has been implemented in its entirety.
The agreements that led to these travel plans happened because the parties had incentive to negotiate. The
Montana Wilderness Association had previously won a lawsuit regarding the Lolo National Forest in which
they successfully argued that the Lolo needed to enforce existing Forest Plan restrictions for motorized
vehicles. In response to this lawsuit the local snowmobile club negotiated a Forest Plan Amendment with
MWA that allowed motorized use in part of the area that would have otherwise been closed under the
original Forest Plan. This chain of events demonstrated to the motorized community the benefits of
negotiating with MWA and led to the negotiated agreement and travel plans on the Lewis and Clark National
Forest.
http://www.fs.usda.gov/detailfull/lcnf/maps-pubs/?cid=STELPRDB5340761&width=full
8
Clearwater National Forest, Idaho
The Forest Service has broad management authority, including
restricting non-conforming uses in Recommended Wilderness
Areas.
The Clearwater National Forest included winter travel planning when they developed a travel plan to comply
with the 2005 rule. This plan was completed in 2012 and over-snow vehicle use maps were published in
2014. There are 6 OSV maps to cover the 3 ranger districts on the Clearwater. This travel plan manages
OSVs on an area-by-area basis rather than route-by-route as is done in summer travel planning and allows
winter cross country travel. While many areas on the Clearwater are open to OSVs most Recommended
Wilderness and some other areas are designated non-motorized. In addition, the Clearwater travel plan
prohibits OSVs forest-wide during big game hunting season – October 1 through November 15 – to minimize
impacts on wildlife. These simplified restrictions were implemented to reduce confusion for forest users.
The OSV use maps clearly outline where snowmobiles are and are not allowed, show both motorized and
non-motorized trails, and give information about adjoining jurisdictions.
Winter Wildlands Alliance applauded the Clearwater travel plan upon its release, commending the Forest for
balancing motorized and non-motorized uses. The most significant piece of this travel plan is the closure of
the Great Burn Recommended Wilderness Area to snowmobiles. This decision aligns with the neighboring
Lolo National Forest’s decision to enforce their 1986 Forest Plan decision to prohibit snowmobiles in the
Great Burn (which straddles the two national forests). When the Lolo closed the Great Burn to snowmobiles
(after being sued by environmental groups to enforce their existing Forest Plan) motorized groups and
nearby communities unsuccessfully challenged the decision. The Clearwater Travel Plan is currently being
litigated by motorized interests who want to continue snowmobiling in the Great Burn. The plan is also
under litigation by environmental groups who feel it does not restrict motorized use enough.
While the litigation surrounding this plan is not yet resolved, this travel plan sets an example of how Forests
can implement winter travel plans that protect the Wilderness character of Recommended Wilderness Areas.
When the Clearwater decided to prohibit snowmobiles in the Great Burn Recommended Wilderness it set a
precedent for future winter travel planning. This decision aligns with Region One’s general approach to
manage Recommended Wilderness Areas to protect their Wilderness character and is one of the first
examples of putting this directive in place in the winter.
9
Lincoln Ranger District, Helena National Forest, Montana
Montana Wilderness Association
When stakeholders come together early to craft their own
plan for motorized access land managers listen.
The most recent winter travel plan to be finalized by a National Forest is the Blackfoot-North Divide Winter
Travel Plan, implemented by the Lincoln Ranger District on the Helena National Forest in September 2013.
Much of the foundation for this travel plan was laid out 9 years earlier during negotiations between the
Montana Wilderness Association, a local snowmobile club (Ponderosa Snow Warriors), and the Montana
Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks. In 2005, after completing their negotiations the parties presented
the agreement, which was endorsed by the local County Commissioners, to the Helena National Forest in a
highly publicized ceremony. Due to funding and other priorities the official travel planning process took a
long time to complete but was eventually finalized in 2013 and not protested by any individuals or groups.
The final travel plan is characterized by a system of motorized and non-motorized areas that are defined by
topographic features or boundaries. In addition, certain designated routes through otherwise nonmotorized areas are open to snowmobiles. These routes and areas are depicted on an easy to read and
freely available map. Simplified travel restrictions outline the dates during which snowmobiles are allowed
in specific areas. Because the Lincoln Ranger District is grizzly bear habitat the Travel Plan also sets limits on
http://www.fs.usda.gov/detailfull/helena/maps-pubs/?cid=STELPRDB5444167&width=full
10
Given how frequently National Forest management or travel plans are appealed by at least one group the
fact that this plan was not protested speaks volumes about the value of open communication and opposing
parties working through their differences outside of the NEPA process. In this case the Montana Wilderness
Association was able to get the Snow Warriors to agree to no snowmobile access in roadless areas along the
Rocky Mountain Front in exchange for having an area with lower Wilderness values but better for
snowmobiling designated as open for snowmobile use. The Forest Service was then willing to include these
designations in the Travel Plan because they knew they had widespread public support. The negotiations
gave the Forest Service political cover and the courage to designate a large swath of the Rocky Mountain
Front as non-motorized.
Tony Grove-Franklin Basin Winter Recreation Area,
Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest, Utah
Nordic United
Management plans do not always solve conflict or bring
balance to the backcountry.
Not every winter recreation management plan brings balance to the backcountry. The Tony Grove-Franklin
Basin Winter Recreation Use area of the Logan Ranger District, located on the Uinta-Wasatch-Cache
National Forest is one such example.
In 2003 the Wasatch-Cache (now Uinta-Wasatch-Cache) National Forest finalized a new Forest
Management Plan. Nordic United, an organization that represents Nordic and backcountry skiers, was very
involved in this Forest Plan revision and worked to create non-motorized winter recreation areas in the
easily-accessible backcountry near Logan. This area had been used primarily by skiers for many years until
the advent, and increased use, of powerful snowmobiles that could easily access off-trail terrain. During
the Forest Planning process tensions between skiers and snowmobilers escalated as Nordic United
advocated for the Forest Service to designate non-motorized zones in the Tony Grove-Franklin Basin area
of the Bear River Range.
While the planning process was highly contentious, in the end the new plan designated 9,500 acres in the
Bear River Range as non-motorized. The remaining 10,500 acres in Tony Grove remained open to
snowmobiles. The ski community felt that the final Plan was equitable and presented a reasonable solution
to the problem. The motorized community, on the other hand, was upset and felt that they had been
unjustly banned from areas they had previously used.
The new Forest Plan was only in place for one year before it was changed because of political interference.
Congressman Rob Bishop wrote to the Forest Service asking them to re-evaluate the Tony Grove-Franklin
Basin Winter Recreation Use Area. As the 2003 Forest Plan stated that the non-motorized boundaries
depicted in the Plan were approximate and that actual boundaries would be established in coordination
with the State of Utah and local users, the Forest Service obliged. The Forest Supervisor decided to utilize a
“mediation arbitration process” to determine the final boundary lines and both parties (Nordic United and
the local snowmobile club) presented their plans to the Forest Service. Through this process, which Nordic
11
United felt was unfair and disingenuous, the boundaries were re-drawn according to the plan presented by
the snowmobile club, and the non-motorized areas were reduced by about 60%.
With the current management plan the number of skiers using Tony Grove-Franklin Basin will almost
assuredly continue to be outnumbered by snowmobiles in the future. While overt hostilities have
decreased since the Plan was finalized, conflict continues. Some skiers have adapted by becoming hybrid
skiers and snowmobile to the Wilderness boundary in order to access terrain that is off-limits to
snowmobiles. Others have stopped skiing in the area altogether. The Tony Grove-Franklin Basin Winter
Use Area is a particularly disheartening case study because the Forest Service had originally created a Forest
Plan that represented a compromise between motorized and non-motorized users. Political interference
trumped the planning process.
Togwotee Pass, Shoshone National Forest, Wyoming
An example of how travel planning is needed to
find balance in the backcountry.
Straddling the Continental Divide and split between the Shoshone and Bridger-Teton National Forests,
Wyoming’s Togwotee Pass is beloved by winter backcountry enthusiasts and has a history of backcountry
skiing that dates back nearly eighty years. At nearly 10,000 feet, Togwotee Pass provides backcountry skiers,
cross-country skiers and snowshoers with accessible mountain terrain and reliable powder. The American
Avalanche Institute, Central Wyoming College, and National Outdoor Leadership School use the area for
instructing backcountry snowsports enthusiasts in avalanche education, winter camping, and backcountry
skiing. Togwotee Pass has also been the location of several rope tows and, more recently, a snowcat skiing
operation.
12
For backcountry snowsports
enthusiasts traveling from
Freemont County, WY, Togwotee
Pass is the closest option for
backcountry skiing. Unregulated
motorized winter recreation has
degraded the quality and safety of
Togwotee Pass for non-motorized
recreation. Historically, steeper
roadless slopes, ridges, cirques,
couloirs and bowls were places
where non-motorized users could
naturally separate and recreate
without the need of designated
non-motorized areas. However,
modern snowmobiles can
negotiate terrain previously
inaccessible to them. These
advances in snowmobile
technology have eroded the natural separation that previously limited conflict between motorized and
non-motorized recreationists.
Togwotee’s backcountry skiers and snowshoers have repeatedly asked the Forest Service to designate quality
non-motorized areas where they are not subjected to the noise, pollution, crowding, and associated safety
hazards associated with snowmobile use. Each time they have been denied. Most recently the Togwotee
Pass Backcountry Alliance and Winter Wildlands Alliance tried to get one small area – 1 square mile – of
Togwotee Pass designated for non-motorized winter recreation during the Shoshone National Forest
management plan revision. This small area, encompassed by Two Ocean Peak, is one of the few areas
accessible to local backcountry skiers on a day trip and has a long history of backcountry ski activity.
Designating Two Ocean as non-motorized would have left the vast majority of Togwotee Pass open to
snowmobiles. The Forest Service declined to do this, citing that Two Ocean Peak was too small to include in
a large-scale planning document like the Forest Plan. Because of the long-standing history of skiing on
Togwotee, the documented conflict, and repeated failed attempts to find a solution, Togwotee is a
disheartening case study.
Finding balance on Togwotee will continue to be an uphill battle as human-powered proponents must
counter a much larger, more vocal, and economically powerful motorized community that has no incentive
to negotiate with the backcountry ski community. However, the forthcoming winter travel management rule
may present an opportunity for all users of Togwotee’s backcountry community to find a resolution to this
ever-growing conflict. Travel management is exactly the sort of fine-scale planning that the Forest Service
claimed Togwotee falls under when they declined to address this issue during the Forest Plan revision. In
addition, the Executive Order that the travel management rule must comply with specifically states that the
designation of motorized trails and areas will be based upon the promotion of safety of all users on [public]
lands and minimization of conflicts among the various uses of those lands. Togwotee Pass is a classic case of
where backcountry zoning to strike a balance among uses is needed, and winter travel planning is an
opportunity to do just that.
13
Iron Mountain, Eldorado National Forest, California
Snowlands Network
Demonstrating why incentives matter in negotiations
Finding balance in the Sierra Nevada backcountry has been a frustrating and unsuccessful challenge. One
example of where backcountry and cross-country skiers tried and failed to carve out a non-motorized zone is
the Iron Mountain area on the Eldorado National Forest.
Historically, funding for snowmobile trail grooming in California was through a grants program within the
California Department of Parks and Recreation Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation Division with approval
of the OHMVR Commission. This funding was a small part of the total grants process with the vast majority
being for wheeled vehicle recreation. However, the establishment of groomed snowmobile trails never went
through any sort of environmental review process despite the fact that the grantees received public funds.
The Nordic Voice, predecessor to Snowlands Network, lobbied the OHMVR Commission for changes to the
State’s OSV status quo that allowed funding to continue without public review and fair consideration of the
needs of other forest users. They argued that new snowmobile trail grooming displaced non-motorized
visitors from places that they had enjoyed in the past.
One of the areas where snowmobile trail grooming caused conflict with backcountry skiers was near Iron
Mountain, along Highway 88 on Eldorado National Forest. This area is a historic backcountry ski area but this
historic use was not considered when the 55 mile long Silver Bear Snowmobile Trail was developed. When the
state of California agreed pay to groom much of the trail system there was little or no consideration by the State
or Forest Service of the impact nor the setting aside of a non-motorized area. In addition, snowmobiles are not
required to stay on trails, and do not, further reducing available ski terrain. Once the trail system was developed
motorized use grew and has made the area undesirable for non-motorized winter recreation.
In early 2000 the political winds shifted and changed the makeup of the OHMVR Commission. The new
majority chose not to fund grooming the Silver Bear Snowmobile Trail system. This decision spurred the
snowmobile community to negotiate with the ski community in hopes of getting trail grooming funds
restored. Over the course of a year a plan was developed whereby two small areas would be designated nonmotorized in winter while the Silver Bear Snowmobile Trail system would be expanded into an adjacent area
– Baltic Ridge. The proposed non-motorized areas did not conflict with the Silver Bear Snowmobile Trail and
contained good backcountry ski terrain. On the other hand, the Baltic Ridge area is too far away for the
average skier to visit in a day and contained an extensive network of roads that could form an extension of
the Silver Bear Snowmobile Trail.
14
In February 2005 the involved parties, including the Forest Service and the OHMVR Division, attended an
on-the-snow event and the plan seemed to be close to finalization. However, shortly thereafter the OHMVR
Division changed funding for snowmobile trail grooming from a grant process to internal funding. While the
grant process is subject to approval of the Commission, internal funding is not. Once snowmobile trail
grooming was no longer subject to review, the snowmobile community had no incentive to work with
backcountry skiers and all negotiations stopped. In the end the ski community did not get any designated
non-motorized areas around Iron Mountain and snowmobile use continues to grow. This case study
demonstrates the importance of there being an outside force providing incentive for both parties to
negotiate. In this example the snowmobile community had no reason to work with non-motorized forest
users once funding for grooming was no longer serving as an incentive.
© Robert Rowen
15
Lessons Learned
These case studies reveal a number of lessons
learned that will be valuable in future winter
travel management planning efforts. Successful
plans – such as the Wood River Valley Snow Pact
and the Vail Pass Winter Recreation Area – are
negotiated by a small group of committed
individuals who are driven by mutual incentives,
and are able to get to a point where they
recognize and understand values that are different
from their own. Often, to get to that point, these
negotiations require a professional facilitator to
mediate between opposing sides weighed down
with a history of anger, frustration, and conflict.
Finally, these negotiations take time. It took 12
years, with 3-4 meetings per year, from when the Vail Pass task force began its work until the travel plan was
implemented. By comparison, the Wood River Valley’s Winter Committee was much faster, at less than a
year, but with much more frequent meetings.
There are lessons to be learned from failed efforts as well. Cases such as Togwotee Pass, Iron Mountain, and
Tony Grove demonstrate the importance of all sides having an incentive to negotiate. In these cases if the
incentive to negotiate evaporates then the dominant party, the one with the most to lose, generally walks
away from the table. Likewise, if there is no incentive the dominant party may never come to the table at all
– as the case on Togwotee Pass shows. Finally, the Tony Grove case study illustrates how political
interference can completely overturn a negotiation, even after a plan appears finalized.
Negotiating a plan is an important step but meaningless without successful implementation and enforcement
of the plan. In the case studies above the successful plans shared a number of characteristics that make
them sustainable, and most importantly, enforceable. These include:
 Clear boundaries using topographic or geographic features
 Simple maps accompanied by simple restrictions
 Large contiguous non-motorized areas that are close to trailheads
While seasonal closures are often utilized, and can be important, they can be difficult to enforce. Likewise,
voluntary agreements generally do not work. If a group decides to take this path, they should make sure it is
backstopped by monitoring and a commitment to revise the agreement if needed.
Most importantly, creating successful winter travel management plans requires all parties to view each other
as people, not anonymous user groups, with legitimate values and opinions. Even if you are absolutely
convinced that you are right about a particular issue the other parties at the table deserve your respect and
attention. No one group deserves exclusive access to our public lands, but as Winter Wildlands Alliance has
emphasized before, not all uses are appropriate in all places. Finding balance in the backcountry takes effort,
16
© Jim Harris
910 Main St
Boise, ID 83702
Question? Contact Hilary Eisen , Recreation Planning
Coordinator
[email protected] | 1.208.629.1986
www.winterwildlands.org